[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The GreatViews expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.

So many threads, so little time....one topic crosses over to another and so I'll post this here as well....

I asked if you folks wanted a war, and simply to say so if that was the case.....I did so for a reason....you say you don't...OK fine....but as this post to Cyrus will illustrate....you folks should be damned careful what you ask for.....

Regards,

Oppie

-------------------

Now with regard to the measures you ask America to take, let me go one by one...SMCCDI's letter went far beyond this Cyrus, and that's why I posted it again...and they asked this of the international community.

Since you are speaking specificly about what you feel Mr. Bush needs to do NOW, I will answer in that way.

1. To stop, with immediate effect, all international trades with the undemocratic Islamist regime in Iran.

Iran has been under US trade sanction for over a decade.

2. To stop the purchase of oil from Iran and not to start any new contracts or renew any existing ones.

US does not buy Iranian oil, as per sanctions in place.

3. To blockade Iran’s ports in the Persian Gulf and also possibly the Caspian Sea.

A blocade dear Cyrus, if you look up international law, is and has been for a long time considered to be an ACT OF WAR....and would certainly be treated as such by the IRI.

SMCCDI's proposal would incorperate institution building and training, and not just in a security sector...but judicial and others. The reason for the suggestion is spelled out very clearly.

5. Financial help for Iranian oppositions for secular democracy in Iran to match the amount that the Islamist regime and Saudi regime spends for Islamist terrorism....

First step is to cut off the funding, freeze the regime's assets (which the US has done) UN resolutions on financing of terrorism bind all countries to halt the flow of money and support are a matter of public record dating back years.

US instituted the UN Democracy fund, of which many nations have contributed to....have any opposition groups (as part of civil society) applied for funding?

S333 is subject to revision and amendment...I believe the amount allocated matches the amount of frozen Iranian assets in the US.

6. Regime must be kicked out of UN now.

The US is one member nation among 191. It takes a two-thirds majority of the UN general assembly to revoke a member state's membership or suspend it.

Not my strategy Cyrus....I was simply commenting on the strategy of the opposition at this current time....as well...the strategy of a massive national strike is an Iranian idea that has never born fruit...it doesn't require external support directly to achive that, as long as it is properly coordinated. SMCCDI proposed that this be in tandem with international sanction to maximize effect, but there is no sign that Iranians can uphold their end due to lack of coordination.

I posed the "what if" question regarding some 850 protests since the "election" and what effect may have been had they been simultaneous and coordinated...instead of in the piecemeal way they were strung out over time and lacking coordinated effort were simply crushed by the IRI.

Now if you think that the Iranian strategy I was refering to is idealist....you may be correct, given the reality on the ground.

You wish to propose an option considered by all nation to be an act of war...that's your decision...but it seems to fly in the face of reason to assume that it would simply stop there.

In addition, it seems the effect of even the threat to take the IRI to the security council, is having the effect of isolating the regime, as it has gone on public record by Antar himself as willing to take steps to isolate itself, it's oil exports, and other means to respond to IAEA action pending in November.

Yet you decry US lack of action....remember who pushed the EU to take this step, who pushed Russia and China to abstain from opposing it.
and judge for yourself whether US "Iran policy' is working to effect the results you seek.

I have not read the constitution and any information on that would be appreciated. However judging from the news I would guess that the constitution is not secular:
------------------------------
Dear espandyar,

I think you will note a clearly defined role of both Islam and democracy...the universal declarations of human rights...the UN charter

In such, stoning would be in violation of this constitution....the provisions for punishment handed down by a certified cout of law, mandating representation by legal advocate, and other details make this constitution not only compatible with the traditions of Afghanistan, but compatible with democratic and human rights norms.

In the sense that other religions are protected, freedom to worship, etc. it is secular as the state is mandated by the constitution to protect these civil liberties, even though it refers to Islam as the official religion of Afghanistan.

A very unique blend....and this is why after you read this, you may understand why it poses a direct threat to the IRI, in providing example to the Iranian people of what is possible.

And in this I would note that the Iranian people will form their own unique Constitution as befits them when the time comes...you say we are losing in Iraq....that would imply the Iraqis are losing as well....and difficult it may be...but I believe they would take exception to your statement. Ask yourself why the terrorists bomb innocent kids, run when the see Marines, die like flies in every firefight they are forced into...if they are "winning"....not to mention that the Iraqi people have taken great issue with Syria and Iran's interference in their affairs supporting these terrorists.

----------

Iraqi Draft Constitution Sept, 2005 ( to be ratified by the Iraqi people by direct referendum)

I has little time on my hand so I briefly looked at the Afghani Constitution.

Based on the below noted excerpts of the constitution I must insist that Afghanistan is NOT a secular state. Secularism is defiend as:

Quote:

the rational social existence in which religion and supernatural beliefs are irrelevant to understanding the world and segregated from matters of governance

note that your tradition and the placement of your country is irrelevent when you are refering to secualrism.

In the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC of Afghanistani Constitution you read:

...'

Freedom of expression is inviolable.

Every Afghan has the right to express his thought through speech, writing, or illustration or other means,
by observing the provisions stated in this Constitution.

Article Thirty-Five Ch. 2, Art. 14

The citizens of Afghanistan have the right to form social organizations for the purpose of securing material or spiritual aims in accordance with the provisions of the law.

The citizens of Afghanistan have the right to form political parties in accordance with the provisions of the law, provided that:

The program and charter of the party are not contrary to the principles of sacred religion of Islam, and the provisions and values of this Constitution.

Article Forty-Five

The state shall devise and implement a unified educational curriculum based on the provisions of the sacred religion of Islam, national culture, and in accordance with academic principles, and develops the curriculum of religious subjects on the basis of the Islamic sects existing in Afghanistan.

The state adopts necessary measures to ensure physical and psychological well being of family, especially of child and mother, upbringing of children and the elimination of traditions contrary to the principles of sacred religion of Islam.

“In the name Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate
In the name Allah Almighty, in the presence of you representatives of the nation of Afghanistan, I swear to obey and safeguard the provisions of the sacred religion of Islam, to observe the Constitution and other laws of Afghanistan and supervise their implementation; to safeguard the independence, national sovereignty, and the territorial integrity of Afghanistan and the fundamental rights and interests of the people of Afghanistan, and with the assistance of God and the support of the nation, to make great and sincere efforts for the happiness and progress of the people of Afghanistan.”

Article One Hundred and eighteen Ch. 7. Art. 3

A member of the Supreme Court should have the following qualifications:

The age of the Head of the Supreme Court and its members should not be lower than forty at the time of appointment.

Should be citizen of Afghanistan.

Should have higher education in law or in Islamic jurisprudence, and should have enough expertise and experience in the judicial system of Afghanistan.

Note that the judicial system is not indeoendent of the religion Islam and that kills any imlying to a SECULAR state.

Having said that I must isist on my previous post when I mentioned that neither the US or the EU is happy about a secualr state as the still bennefit from Islam. This is the very reason that true opposition groups are ignored while pro Ganji and pro sazegara "opposition" get attention and that is why Mr.Bush And Kofi annan call upon freedom of Gani.
Not becuase that they care about human lifes it becuase they are hoping to find elemnts that can establish another non-secular state where their lucrative contracts are in place.

The two of us have very different understanding of a secualr state. In my future Iran peopel should have the freedom to go out in the street and shout "f... Mohamad and his allies" and still be protected by the freedom of speech.

As for the terrorists running away when they see a marin I would say that is becuase of their Partisanian tactics which arrives from the parthian times in Iran. a inregular group that hits and run and they aim civilian partly becuase of their nature and partly to gain public attention.
As you say Iraqi people are loosing everyday that the war continues.
Bush Admin should have toppled the Tehran regime before going into Iraq.
Now a scilence war is happenng between the IR and US this is while US cannot even pass a real resolution on IR.
So I would say the Us has lost the game so far and the furthur it goes the less are the chances to prevail.

Which leads to the FORCED attack on Islamic republics sites and not the whole way as the oppsosion is not being prepared!
If that was the plan of Bush Admin the different opposition groups would have been updated and organiazed the vey leat they would ceirtanly not waist time on sazegara and Ganji.

Instead the vey few separatist in Iran are getting all the media attention and that is what US is going to use against the IR and AGAINST the IRANIAN people.

"As you say Iraqi people are loosing everyday that the war continues."

Now I have enough respect for those I have a conversation with to never try and twist the meaning of other's words, nor to place them in their mouth as you have done here with me.

From your post:

"Bush Admis is failing in Iraq.."

This is what I posted:

you say we are losing in Iraq....that would imply the Iraqis are losing as well....and difficult it may be...but I believe they would take exception to your statement.

Maybe you misunderstood me....most Iraqi's would tell you to F--k off if you were to say what you said in quotes above. That you didn't know what you were talking about is what I would tell you now.

I figured you would cherry-pick what you thought would prove your case that this is not a secular constitution....and I'd like to see the actual source of your definition of "secular", but if I read this constitution correct as highlighted, when it says "not contrary" with ISLAM I read and interpret that as "not opposing" not in the way you have interpreted it as "must conform with". as I said, it is a unique blend, and since the Afghan people chose this of their own direct referendum, who are you, or me, or any government to question it?

So yeah, we have a difference of opinion. You see this as some conspiracy, while I see it as freedom of choice by a proud people, independant of influence in their decision making.

Just as a free Iran will make their own choice to determine what is a proper constitution...no one will determine that but Iranians.

Article Six Ch. 1, Art. 6

The state is obliged to create a prosperous and progressive society based on social justice, protection of human dignity, protection of human rights, realization of democracy, and to ensure national unity and equality among all ethnic groups and tribes and to provide for balanced development in all areas of the country.

Article Seven Ch. 1, Art. 7

The state shall abide by the UN charter, international treaties, international conventions that Afghanistan has signed, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article Twenty-tow Ch. 2, Art. 1

Any kind of discrimination and privilege between the citizens of Afghanistan are prohibited.

The citizens of Afghanistan have equal rights and duties before the law

Article Twenty-Four Ch. 2, Art. 3

Liberty is the natural right of human beings. This right has no limits unless affecting the rights of others or public interests, which are regulated by law.

Liberty and dignity of human beings are inviolable.

The state has the duty to respect and protect the liberty and dignity of human beings.
Article Twenty-Nine Ch. 2, Art. 8

Torture of human beings is prohibited.

No person, even with the intention of discovering the truth, can resort to torture or order the torture of another person who may be under prosecution, arrest, or imprisoned, or convicted to punishment.

Punishment contrary to human integrity is prohibited.

Read this again:

Article Thirty-Five Ch. 2, Art. 14

The citizens of Afghanistan have the right to form social organizations for the purpose of securing material or spiritual aims in accordance with the provisions of the law.The citizens of Afghanistan have the right to form political parties in accordance with the provisions of the law, provided that:

The program and charter of the party are not contrary to the principles of sacred religion of Islam, and the provisions and values of this Constitution.

The organizational structure and financial sources of the party are made public.
The party does not have military or paramilitary aims and structures.

Should have no affiliation to a foreign political party or sources

Formation and functioning of a party based on ethnicity, language, religion and region is not permissible.
A party set up in accordance with provisions of the law shall not be dissolved without lawful reasons and the decision of an authorized court.

I asked you to cite the source of your posted definition of "Secular".

There was a reason for that, as a simple search produced this:

1 entry found for secular.
sec·u·lar ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sky-lr)
adj.
1.Worldly rather than spiritual.
2.Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.
3.Relating to or advocating secularism.
4.Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.
5.Occurring or observed once in an age or century.
Lasting from century to century.

n.
A member of the secular clergy.
A layperson.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, from Old French seculer, from Late Latin saeculris, from Latin, of an age, from saeculum, generation, age.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
secu·lar·ly adv.

[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

I dont see a point i trying to convince me that Islamic republic of Afghanistan is a secular state in a meaning that religion and state are seperate from each other.

Le me remind you a point that you seem to have disregarded:

Article One Hundred and eighteen Ch. 7. Art. 3

A member of the Supreme Court should have the following qualifications:

The age of the Head of the Supreme Court and its members should not be lower than forty at the time of appointment.

Should be citizen of Afghanistan.

Should have higher education in law or in Islamic jurisprudence, and should have enough expertise and experience in the judicial system of Afghanistan.

What my compatriots and Iranians are looking for is a TOTAL separation of religion and state affairs.

As you mentioned it is up the the Iranian themselfs to determain their destany, however as I stated earlier I doubt that the western countries and US is willing to have such a state in that region hence the ISALMIC republic of afghanistan.

You state that these are unique combination of culture and religion and I say that this is just a excuse to justify another Islamic state.

People everywhere should be able to leave religion out of state matters.

"What my compatriots and Iranians are looking for is a TOTAL separation of religion and state affairs."

I don't have any problem with that, nor does the government of the US.

Besides, when that time comes, it will be an Iranian decision. There are many constitutions of many countries with differing forms of democracy around the globe..each one is unique unto the people and culture, why would an Iranian constitution be any different in that aspect? For that matter, why would the Afghan constitution not be reflective of this?

"As you mentioned it is up the the Iranian themselfs to determain their destany, however as I stated earlier I doubt that the western countries and US is willing to have such a state in that region hence the ISALMIC republic of afghanistan."

Look, the Afghan people determined the content, ratified it by the will of Afghan people, and the Afghan constitution serves the will of the Afghan people.... Not the will of the US, or any other nation involved in reconstruction and institution building processes ongoing.

Your premis that the US would somehow "not allow" the Iranian people to determine a constitution that is unique to the Iranian people's will and choice in the matter is false, misleading, and simply a parroting of the kind of regime propaganda that floods opposition site like this one to which the intent is to instill mistrust, an attempt to decieve, and discredit US intent, and an attempt to drive a wedge between those yearning for freedom and those who would support those aspirations.

"You state that these are unique combination of culture and religion and I say that this is just a excuse to justify another Islamic state."
--------
A blend ofCultural tradition and democracy, (of which a facet of cultural tradition is the religion of Islam).

Since Afghan's chose freely the type of government structure (the loya jirga process, etc.), as well as their constitution....who are you to question their free choice in the matter?

Besides, you have not even posted a source for your definition of "secular", did you simply make it up?

"People everywhere should be able to leave religion out of state matters."
-------
This implies that you failed to understand the article of the Afghan constitution which forbade any political party being religiously affiliated.

This would not allow a Taliban style government to ever re-emerge in Afghanistan.

Again, each nation must choose for itself what is correct, "by, for and of the people"....

In no way did I ever imply that the Afghan constitution would in any way resemble the future democraticly ratified Iranian constitution...save for one thing which provides possibility to Iranians now, under the current Islamic republic (as a threat to that regime)...and that is the sections that refer to the Universal declaration of human rights, the UN charter, and democracy.

Those three aspects I believe would be included in any new Iranian constitution.

Beyond what I've said here, if you have a problem with the Afghan decision in writing their own constitution....take it up with the government of Afghanistan, and the people.

I'm sure they will be happy to give you a piece of their mind...since you've given them no credit for their effort.

Are you denying that US was behind the taliban forces (green belt project) in the begining or that is a conspiracy theory as well ?

If you look at the Iranian history you will see that the foreginers have always backed the mullahs hance taken advantage of peoples stupidity and gained for their own country.

You speak on behalf of the US government but unless you dont work there you cannot be certain on their policies.

Well I will not bother to contact the Afghan G as we need to concentrate on Iran now but I must say that it is dissapointing that after so much misary still have such constitution that people can be stoned for adultary.

ps.

Secular
Secular in its most common meaning, means "outside of religion". It can be used in a neutral sense, e.g. when at the end of the 17th century most sonatas were used in church services, a "secular" sonata meant nothing more than a sonata not used in a church service (without any connotation of the composer being religious or not). See secularity as relative worldliness.

In current political and philosophical discourse, it refers to a government obeying civil laws (as opposed to religious instructions like the Islamic shariah, the Catholic canon law or rabbinacal law), independently from any religion, and not favoring any particular religion;

"in addition, secularism also includes the priority of the civil laws over any religious legislation. Nowadays, all major religions accept this, except for significant schools in Islam (which proclaim just the opposite)."
-----------

You forgot to include this....and my point is that if you take a good long objective look at how the Afghan constitution reads IN TOTALITY...it will become obvious to you that civil laws trump religious law as the included provisions under the universal declaration of human rights, the UN charter, and democracy (as specified in detail and application) provide secularity inherent in the provisions of the Afghan Constitution.

As for the Taliban...a product of the madrassas in Pakistan...funded by money siphoned off by the Pakistani government at the time those funds were to be used to support the Afghan opposition to Soviet occupation, provided by the USA government....I have a lot of information I can provide you in detail as to exactly what the facts were...so I have reason to be of the opinion that the way you and others have described it is indeed a conspiracy theory....a conspiracy it may be....but not of US design.

But as you say you don't have time to check the facts from the source, and Iranian affairs are more important...fine.

My opinions are my own...I do not speak on behalf of the US government...as that would imply that I am a government employee authorized to speak on the US behalf....However, I post info from that source, unedited, in the hope that it helps folks understand US policy a bit better. It takes time and effort to do so, but you are welcome to do the research for yourself, and I don't insist you take my word for it...regardless of the accurate track record apparent in my posts.

I have a good number of contacts in addition to going directly to the source in research...and so yes, I can be a hell of a lot more certain about US policy than most private citizens you'll meet....and that includes yourself....(Chuckle).

I have a good number of contacts in addition to going directly to the source in research...and so yes, I can be a hell of a lot more certain about US policy than most private citizens you'll meet....and that includes yourself....(Chuckle).

Nothig wrong to have a good self confidence but as I said you cannot know what it decided behind close doors and your guess will be good as anyones.
However I strongly doubt that the US adamin is able to pull of such thing as the US admin has too many fractions which cannot pursue a single Iran policy.

U.S. Policy Makers Weigh Options For Handling Iran

October 06, 2005
The Wall Street Journal
Carla Anne Robbins

With President Bush's top advisers set to discuss U.S. policy toward Iran today, the State Department has circulated a briefing paper that proposes significantly expanding U.S. diplomatic contacts with Tehran's new hard-line government.

The idea is part of a list of incentives and punishments that U.S. officials are outlining as they consider ways to block Tehran's nuclear ambitions and encourage internal political change there, U.S. officials said.

In preparation for today's White House meeting, the Treasury Department has prepared its own paper laying out the limited menu of economic pressures the U.S. -- which already bans most trade with Iran -- could impose if Tehran refuses to halt sensitive nuclear activities and return to negotiations with the Europeans.

A U.S. official said the main focus of today's meeting will be on democratization efforts in Iran. And the State Department paper lays out several more predictable steps, including starting Farsi-language television broadcasts into Tehran; increasing funding for nongovernmental organizations that promote democracy in Iran; and establishing a U.S. public diplomacy office in the Gulf region focused on Iran.

In the most contentious idea, the paper also suggests that the U.S. might consider more direct diplomatic contacts with the Iranian government to test its willingness to change its behavior.

According to an official who has read the paper, those could entail a quiet approach to representatives of supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. More ambitiously, Washington could propose opening up a small "interests section" in Tehran staffed by U.S. consular officers.

Since the 1979 hostage crisis, the U.S. has had no representation in Iran, and the Swiss have managed all legal and consular issues. The Bush administration had quiet but regular diplomatic contacts with Tehran following Sept. 11, 2001. It halted the dialogue in mid-2003 over differences over Iraq and Tehran's handling of al Qaeda prisoners.

U.S. officials said they have no illusions about Iran's new conservative and defiant president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And they say they have little hope that Tehran would respond positively to any U.S. overture. Indeed, several officials suggested that a rejection by Tehran would have the dual benefit of burnishing Washington's reputation with the Iranian public and the Europeans.

It isn't clear whether Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is prepared to press any of the paper's proposals in today's meeting. But the fact that it has been circulated among members of the so-called Deputies Committee -- the second tier of policy makers -- has already given its ideas some implicit endorsement.

The department's willingness to even raise the idea of increased diplomatic contacts with Iran -- a government considered anathema by the White House -- is also a sign of Ms. Rice's power and confidence. After sitting on the sidelines for most of the first term as hard-liners and moderates battled over both Iran and North Korea policy, she is now taking the lead on the two issues.

U.S. officials insist their best hope for pressuring Tehran still lies with the Europeans and eventually Russia and China.

While the U.S. and Europe have focused much of their efforts in recent weeks on bringing Iran before the Security Council, U.S. officials privately admit that such a move would be mainly symbolic. Moscow, which is the main supplier of Iran's civilian nuclear program, would almost certainly veto any sanctions.

Instead, the U.S. is hoping to persuade the Europeans, who have extensive diplomatic and economic ties to Iran, to impose their own punishments if Iran presses forward with its nuclear efforts.

Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns will meet with representatives of the European Union 3 -- Britain, France and Germany -- in Brussels next week and is expected to begin discussing ways to ratchet up the pressure on Tehran.

While the Europeans have resisted the idea of imposing their own sanctions, some diplomats acknowledge that Iran may bring the punishment down on itself.

In August Iran pulled out of negotiations with the Europeans and resumed uranium conversion, a first step toward producing nuclear fuel for power reactors or a weapon. Mr. Ahmadinejad further alienated the Europeans with a highly confrontational speech to the United Nations General Assembly. Iran has since warned that it could take the next critical step and begin enriching uranium if its case is referred to the Security Council.

The bottom line is the policy that the president sets, as he determines US foreign policy, and while State implements it...and offers ideas in consultation...it is the president's decision. So regardless if there are different points of view, when he makes his decision...folks get to work on it.

Thanks for posting the article, and as the president is set to make a major speech today regarding the war on terrorism.....stay tuned.

President Discusses War on Terror at National Endowment for Democracy
Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center
Washington, D.C.

10:07 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. (Applause.) Thank you all. Please be seated. (Applause.) Thank you for the warm welcome. I'm honored once again to be with the supporters of the National Endowment for Democracy. Since the day President Ronald Reagan set out the vision for this Endowment, the world has seen the swiftest advance of democratic institutions in history. And Americans are proud to have played our role in this great story.

Our nation stood guard on tense borders; we spoke for the rights of dissidents and the hopes of exile; we aided the rise of new democracies on the ruins of tyranny. And all the cost and sacrifice of that struggle has been worth it, because, from Latin America to Europe to Asia, we've gained the peace that freedom brings.

In this new century, freedom is once again assaulted by enemies determined to roll back generations of democratic progress. Once again, we're responding to a global campaign of fear with a global campaign of freedom. And once again, we will see freedom's victory. (Applause.)

Vin, I want to thank you for inviting me back. And thank you for the short introduction. (Laughter.) I appreciate Carl Gershman. I want to welcome former Congressman Dick Gephardt, who is a board member of the National Endowment for Democracy. It's good to see you, Dick. And I appreciate Chris Cox, who is the Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and a board member for the National Endowment of Democracy, for being here, as well. I want to thank all the other board members.

I appreciate the Secretary of State, Condi Rice, who has joined us -- alongside her, Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld. Thank you all for being here. I'm proud, as well, that the newly sworn-in Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the first Marine ever to hold that position, is with us today -- General Peter Pace. (Applause.) I thank the members of the Diplomatic Corps who are here, as well.

Recently our country observed the fourth anniversary of a great evil, and looked back on a great turning point in our history. We still remember a proud city covered in smoke and ashes, a fire across the Potomac, and passengers who spent their final moments on Earth fighting the enemy. We still remember the men who rejoiced in every death, and Americans in uniform rising to duty. And we remember the calling that came to us on that day, and continues to this hour: We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity. We will not tire, or rest, until the war on terror is won. (Applause.)

The images and experience of September the 11th are unique for Americans. Yet the evil of that morning has reappeared on other days, in other places -- in Mombasa, and Casablanca, and Riyadh, and Jakarta, and Istanbul, and Madrid, and Beslan, and Taba, and Netanya, and Baghdad, and elsewhere. In the past few months, we've seen a new terror offensive with attacks on London, and Sharm el-Sheikh, and a deadly bombing in Bali once again. All these separate images of destruction and suffering that we see on the news can seem like random and isolated acts of madness; innocent men and women and children have died simply because they boarded the wrong train, or worked in the wrong building, or checked into the wrong hotel. Yet while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil, but not insane.

Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus -- and also against Muslims from other traditions, who they regard as heretics.

Many militants are part of global, borderless terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, which spreads propaganda, and provides financing and technical assistance to local extremists, and conducts dramatic and brutal operations like September the 11th. Other militants are found in regional groups, often associated with al Qaeda -- paramilitary insurgencies and separatist movements in places like Somalia, and the Philippines, and Pakistan, and Chechnya, and Kashmir, and Algeria. Still others spring up in local cells, inspired by Islamic radicalism, but not centrally directed. Islamic radicalism is more like a loose network with many branches than an army under a single command. Yet these operatives, fighting on scattered battlefields, share a similar ideology and vision for our world.

We know the vision of the radicals because they've openly stated it -- in videos, and audiotapes, and letters, and declarations, and websites. First, these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and stand in the way of their ambitions. Al Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, has called on Muslims to dedicate, quote, their "resources, sons and money to driving the infidels out of their lands." Their tactic to meet this goal has been consistent for a quarter-century: They hit us, and expect us to run. They want us to repeat the sad history of Beirut in 1983, and Mogadishu in 1993 -- only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences.

Second, the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments. Over the past few decades, radicals have specifically targeted Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and Jordan for potential takeover. They achieved their goal, for a time, in Afghanistan. Now they've set their sights on Iraq. Bin Laden has stated: "The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries. It's either victory and glory, or misery and humiliation." The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. And we must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war on terror.

Third, the militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia. With greater economic and military and political power, the terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American people, and to blackmail our government into isolation.

Some might be tempted to dismiss these goals as fanatical or extreme. Well, they are fanatical and extreme -- and they should not be dismissed. Our enemy is utterly committed. As Zarqawi has vowed, "We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life." And the civilized world knows very well that other fanatics in history, from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot, consumed whole nations in war and genocide before leaving the stage of history. Evil men, obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience, must be taken very seriously -- and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply.

Defeating the militant network is difficult, because it thrives, like a parasite, on the suffering and frustration of others. The radicals exploit local conflicts to build a culture of victimization, in which someone else is always to blame and violence is always the solution. They exploit resentful and disillusioned young men and women, recruiting them through radical mosques as the pawns of terror. And they exploit modern technology to multiply their destructive power. Instead of attending faraway training camps, recruits can now access online training libraries to learn how to build a roadside bomb, or fire a rocket-propelled grenade -- and this further spreads the threat of violence, even within peaceful democratic societies.

The influence of Islamic radicalism is also magnified by helpers and enablers. They have been sheltered by authoritarian regimes, allies of convenience like Syria and Iran, that share the goal of hurting America and moderate Muslim governments, and use terrorist propaganda to blame their own failures on the West and America, and on the Jews. These radicals depend on front operations, such as corrupted charities, which direct money to terrorist activity. They're strengthened by those who aggressively fund the spread of radical, intolerant versions of Islam in unstable parts of the world. The militants are aided, as well, by elements of the Arab news media that incite hatred and anti-Semitism, that feed conspiracy theories and speak of a so-called American "war on Islam" -- with seldom a word about American action to protect Muslims in Afghanistan, and Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Iraq.

Some have also argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions of our coalition in Iraq, claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001 -- and al Qaeda attacked us anyway. The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse. The government of Russia did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and yet the militants killed more than 180 Russian schoolchildren in Beslan.

Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence -- the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago. In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of the killers -- and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder.

On the contrary: They target nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence. Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, never give in, and never accept anything less than complete victory. (Applause.)

The murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals is the great challenge of our new century. Yet, in many ways, this fight resembles the struggle against communism in the last century. Like the ideology of communism, Islamic radicalism is elitist, led by a self-appointed vanguard that presumes to speak for the Muslim masses. Bin Laden says his own role is to tell Muslims, quote, "what is good for them and what is not." And what this man who grew up in wealth and privilege considers good for poor Muslims is that they become killers and suicide bombers. He assures them that his -- that this is the road to paradise -- though he never offers to go along for the ride.

Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy teaches that innocent individuals can be sacrificed to serve a political vision. And this explains their cold-blooded contempt for human life. We've seen it in the murders of Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg, and Margaret Hassan, and many others. In a courtroom in the Netherlands, the killer of Theo Van Gogh turned to the victim's grieving mother and said, "I do not feel your pain -- because I believe you are an infidel." And in spite of this veneer of religious rhetoric, most of the victims claimed by the militants are fellow Muslims.

When 25 Iraqi children are killed in a bombing, or Iraqi teachers are executed at their school, or hospital workers are killed caring for the wounded, this is murder, pure and simple -- the total rejection of justice and honor and morality and religion. These militants are not just the enemies of America, or the enemies of Iraq, they are the enemies of Islam and the enemies of humanity. (Applause.) We have seen this kind of shameless cruelty before, in the heartless zealotry that led to the gulags, and the Cultural Revolution, and the killing fields.

Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy pursues totalitarian aims. Its leaders pretend to be an aggrieved party, representing the powerless against imperial enemies. In truth they have endless ambitions of imperial domination, and they wish to make everyone powerless except themselves. Under their rule, they have banned books, and desecrated historical monuments, and brutalized women. They seek to end dissent in every form, and to control every aspect of life, and to rule the soul, itself. While promising a future of justice and holiness, the terrorists are preparing for a future of oppression and misery.

Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy is dismissive of free peoples, claiming that men and women who live in liberty are weak and decadent. Zarqawi has said that Americans are, quote, "the most cowardly of God's creatures." But let's be clear: It is cowardice that seeks to kill children and the elderly with car bombs, and cuts the throat of a bound captive, and targets worshipers leaving a mosque. It is courage that liberated more than 50 million people. It is courage that keeps an untiring vigil against the enemies of a rising democracy. And it is courage in the cause of freedom that once again will destroy the enemies of freedom. (Applause.)

And Islamic radicalism, like the ideology of communism, contains inherent contradictions that doom it to failure. By fearing freedom -- by distrusting human creativity, and punishing change, and limiting the contributions of half the population -- this ideology undermines the very qualities that make human progress possible, and human societies successful. The only thing modern about the militants' vision is the weapons they want to use against us. The rest of their grim vision is defined by a warped image of the past -- a declaration of war on the idea of progress, itself. And whatever lies ahead in the war against this ideology, the outcome is not in doubt: Those who despise freedom and progress have condemned themselves to isolation, decline, and collapse. Because free peoples believe in the future, free peoples will own the future. (Applause.)

We didn't ask for this global struggle, but we're answering history's call with confidence, and a comprehensive strategy. Defeating a broad and adaptive network requires patience, constant pressure, and strong partners in Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, Asia and beyond. Working with these partners, we're disrupting militant conspiracies, destroying their ability to make war, and working to give millions in a troubled region of the world a hopeful alternative to resentment and violence.

First, we're determined to prevent the attacks of terrorist networks before they occur. We're reorganizing our government to give this nation a broad and coordinated homeland defense. We're reforming our intelligence agencies for the incredibly difficult task of tracking enemy activity, based on information that often comes in small fragments from widely scattered sources, here and abroad. We're acting, along with the governments from many countries, to destroy the terrorist networks and incapacitate their leaders. Together, we've killed or captured nearly all of those directly responsible for the September the 11th attacks; as well as some of bin Laden's most senior deputies; al Qaeda managers and operatives in more than 24 countries; the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing, who was chief of al Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf; the mastermind of the Jakarta and the first Bali bombings; a senior Zarqawi terrorist planner, who was planning attacks in Turkey; and many of al Qaeda's senior leaders in Saudi Arabia.

Overall, the United States and our partners have disrupted at least ten serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since September the 11th, including three al Qaeda plots to attack inside the United States. We've stopped at least five more al Qaeda efforts to case targets in the United States, or infiltrate operatives into our country. Because of this steady progress, the enemy is wounded -- but the enemy is still capable of global operations. Our commitment is clear: We will not relent until the organized international terror networks are exposed and broken, and their leaders held to account for their acts of murder.

Second, we're determined to deny weapons of mass destruction to outlaw regimes, and to their terrorist allies who would use them without hesitation. The United States, working with Great Britain, Pakistan, and other nations, has exposed and disrupted a major black-market operation in nuclear technology led by A.Q. Khan. Libya has abandoned its chemical and nuclear weapons programs, as well as long-range ballistic missiles. And in the last year, America and our partners in the Proliferation Security Initiative have stopped more than a dozen shipments of suspected weapons technology, including equipment for Iran's ballistic missile program.

This progress has reduced the danger to free nations, but has not removed it. Evil men who want to use horrendous weapons against us are working in deadly earnest to gain them. And we're working urgently to keep weapons of mass destruction out of their hands.

Third, we're determined to deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes. State sponsors like Syria and Iran have a long history of collaboration with terrorists, and they deserve no patience from the victims of terror. The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, because they're equally as guilty of murder. (Applause.) Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization. And the civilized world must hold those regimes to account.

Fourth, we're determined to deny the militants control of any nation, which they would use as a home base and a launching pad for terror. For this reason, we're fighting beside our Afghan partners against remnants of the Taliban and their al Qaeda allies. For this reason, we're working with President Musharraf to oppose and isolate the militants in Pakistan. And for this reason, we're fighting the regime remnants and terrorists in Iraq. The terrorist goal is to overthrow a rising democracy, claim a strategic country as a haven for terror, destabilize the Middle East, and strike America and other free nations with ever-increasing violence. Our goal is to defeat the terrorists and their allies at the heart of their power -- and so we will defeat the enemy in Iraq.

Our coalition, along with our Iraqi allies, is moving forward with a comprehensive, specific military plan. Area by area, city by city, we're conducting offensive operations to clear out enemy forces, and leaving behind Iraqi units to prevent the enemy from returning. Within these areas, we're working for tangible improvements in the lives of Iraqi citizens. And we're aiding the rise of an elected government that unites the Iraqi people against extremism and violence. This work involves great risk for Iraqis, and for Americans and coalition forces. Wars are not won without sacrifice -- and this war will require more sacrifice, more time, and more resolve.

The terrorists are as brutal an enemy as we've ever faced. They're unconstrained by any notion of our common humanity, or by the rules of warfare. No one should underestimate the difficulties ahead, nor should they overlook the advantages we bring to this fight.

Some observers look at the job ahead and adopt a self-defeating pessimism. It is not justified. With every random bombing and with every funeral of a child, it becomes more clear that the extremists are not patriots, or resistance fighters -- they are murderers at war with the Iraqi people, themselves.

In contrast, the elected leaders of Iraq are proving to be strong and steadfast. By any standard or precedent of history, Iraq has made incredible political progress -- from tyranny, to liberation, to national elections, to the writing of a constitution, in the space of two-and-a-half years. With our help, the Iraqi military is gaining new capabilities and new confidence with every passing month. At the time of our Fallujah operations 11 months ago, there were only a few Iraqi army battalions in combat. Today there are more than 80 Iraqi army battalions fighting the insurgency alongside our forces. Progress isn't easy, but it is steady. And no fair-minded person should ignore, deny, or dismiss the achievements of the Iraqi people.

Some observers question the durability of democracy in Iraq. They underestimate the power and appeal of freedom. We've heard it suggested that Iraq's democracy must be on shaky ground because Iraqis are arguing with each other. But that's the essence of democracy: making your case, debating with those who you disagree -- who disagree, building consensus by persuasion, and answering to the will of the people. We've heard it said that the Shia, Sunnis and Kurds of Iraq are too divided to form a lasting democracy. In fact, democratic federalism is the best hope for unifying a diverse population, because a federal constitutional system respects the rights and religious traditions of all citizens, while giving all minorities, including the Sunnis, a stake and a voice in the future of their country. It is true that the seeds of freedom have only recently been planted in Iraq -- but democracy, when it grows, is not a fragile flower; it is a healthy, sturdy tree. (Applause.)

As Americans, we believe that people everywhere -- everywhere -- prefer freedom to slavery, and that liberty, once chosen, improves the lives of all. And so we're confident, as our coalition and the Iraqi people each do their part, Iraqi democracy will succeed.

Some observers also claim that America would be better off by cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now. This is a dangerous illusion, refuted with a simple question: Would the United States and other free nations be more safe, or less safe, with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people, and its resources? Having removed a dictator who hated free peoples, we will not stand by as a new set of killers, dedicated to the destruction of our own country, seizes control of Iraq by violence.

There's always a temptation, in the middle of a long struggle, to seek the quiet life, to escape the duties and problems of the world, and to hope the enemy grows weary of fanaticism and tired of murder. This would be a pleasant world, but it's not the world we live in. The enemy is never tired, never sated, never content with yesterday's brutality. This enemy considers every retreat of the civilized world as an invitation to greater violence. In Iraq, there is no peace without victory. We will keep our nerve and we will win that victory. (Applause.)

The fifth element of our strategy in the war on terror is to deny the militants future recruits by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope across the broader Middle East. This is a difficult and long-term project, yet there's no alternative to it. Our future and the future of that region are linked. If the broader Middle East is left to grow in bitterness, if countries remain in misery, while radicals stir the resentments of millions, then that part of the world will be a source of endless conflict and mounting danger, and for our generation and the next. If the peoples of that region are permitted to choose their own destiny, and advance by their own energy and by their participation as free men and women, then the extremists will be marginalized, and the flow of violent radicalism to the rest of the world will slow, and eventually end. By standing for the hope and freedom of others, we make our own freedom more secure.

America is making this stand in practical ways. We're encouraging our friends in the Middle East, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to take the path of reform, to strengthen their own societies in the fight against terror by respecting the rights and choices of their own people. We're standing with dissidents and exiles against oppressive regimes, because we know that the dissidents of today will be the democratic leaders of tomorrow. We're making our case through public diplomacy, stating clearly and confidently our belief in self-determination, and the rule of law, and religious freedom, and equal rights for women, beliefs that are right and true in every land, and in every culture. (Applause.)

As we do our part to confront radicalism, we know that the most vital work will be done within the Islamic world, itself. And this work has begun. Many Muslim scholars have already publicly condemned terrorism, often citing Chapter 5, Verse 32 of the Koran, which states that killing an innocent human being is like killing all humanity, and saving the life of one person is like saving all of humanity. After the attacks in London on July the 7th, an imam in the United Arab Emirates declared, "Whoever does such a thing is not a Muslim, nor a religious person." The time has come for all responsible Islamic leaders to join in denouncing an ideology that exploits Islam for political ends, and defiles a noble faith.

Many people of the Muslim faith are proving their commitment at great personal risk. Everywhere we have engaged the fight against extremism, Muslim allies have stood up and joined the fight, becoming partners in a vital cause. Afghan troops are in combat against Taliban remnants. Iraqi soldiers are sacrificing to defeat al Qaeda in their own country. These brave citizens know the stakes -- the survival of their own liberty, the future of their own region, the justice and humanity of their own tradition -- and that United States of America is proud to stand beside them. (Applause.)

With the rise of a deadly enemy and the unfolding of a global ideological struggle, our time in history will be remembered for new challenges and unprecedented dangers. And yet the fight we have joined is also the current expression of an ancient struggle, between those who put their faith in dictators, and those who put their faith in the people. Throughout history, tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that murder is justified to serve their grand vision -- and they end up alienating decent people across the globe. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that regimented societies are strong and pure -- until those societies collapse in corruption and decay. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that free men and women are weak and decadent -- until the day that free men and women defeat them.

We don't know the course of our own struggle -- the course our own struggle will take -- or the sacrifices that might lie ahead. We do know, however, that the defense of freedom is worth our sacrifice. We do know the love of freedom is the mightiest force of history. And we do know the cause of freedom will once again prevail.

President Discusses War on Terror at National Endowment for Democracy
Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center
Washington, D.C.

10:07 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. (Applause.) Thank you all. Please be seated. (Applause.) Thank you for the warm welcome. I'm honored once again to be with the supporters of the National Endowment for Democracy. Since the day President Ronald Reagan set out the vision for this Endowment, the world has seen the swiftest advance of democratic institutions in history. And Americans are proud to have played our role in this great story.

Our nation stood guard on tense borders; we spoke for the rights of dissidents and the hopes of exile; we aided the rise of new democracies on the ruins of tyranny. And all the cost and sacrifice of that struggle has been worth it, because, from Latin America to Europe to Asia, we've gained the peace that freedom brings.

In this new century, freedom is once again assaulted by enemies determined to roll back generations of democratic progress. Once again, we're responding to a global campaign of fear with a global campaign of freedom. And once again, we will see freedom's victory. (Applause.)

Vin, I want to thank you for inviting me back. And thank you for the short introduction. (Laughter.) I appreciate Carl Gershman. I want to welcome former Congressman Dick Gephardt, who is a board member of the National Endowment for Democracy. It's good to see you, Dick. And I appreciate Chris Cox, who is the Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and a board member for the National Endowment of Democracy, for being here, as well. I want to thank all the other board members.

I appreciate the Secretary of State, Condi Rice, who has joined us -- alongside her, Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld. Thank you all for being here. I'm proud, as well, that the newly sworn-in Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the first Marine ever to hold that position, is with us today -- General Peter Pace. (Applause.) I thank the members of the Diplomatic Corps who are here, as well.

Recently our country observed the fourth anniversary of a great evil, and looked back on a great turning point in our history. We still remember a proud city covered in smoke and ashes, a fire across the Potomac, and passengers who spent their final moments on Earth fighting the enemy. We still remember the men who rejoiced in every death, and Americans in uniform rising to duty. And we remember the calling that came to us on that day, and continues to this hour: We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity.We will not tire, or rest, until the war on terror is won. (Applause.)

The images and experience of September the 11th are unique for Americans. Yet the evil of that morning has reappeared on other days, in other places -- in Mombasa, and Casablanca, and Riyadh, and Jakarta, and Istanbul, and Madrid, and Beslan, and Taba, and Netanya, and Baghdad, and elsewhere. In the past few months, we've seen a new terror offensive with attacks on London, and Sharm el-Sheikh, and a deadly bombing in Bali once again. All these separate images of destruction and suffering that we see on the news can seem like random and isolated acts of madness; innocent men and women and children have died simply because they boarded the wrong train, or worked in the wrong building, or checked into the wrong hotel. Yet while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil, but not insane.

Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus -- and also against Muslims from other traditions, who they regard as heretics.

Many militants are part of global, borderless terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, which spreads propaganda, and provides financing and technical assistance to local extremists, and conducts dramatic and brutal operations like September the 11th. Other militants are found in regional groups, often associated with al Qaeda -- paramilitary insurgencies and separatist movements in places like Somalia, and the Philippines, and Pakistan, and Chechnya, and Kashmir, and Algeria. Still others spring up in local cells, inspired by Islamic radicalism, but not centrally directed. Islamic radicalism is more like a loose network with many branches than an army under a single command. Yet these operatives, fighting on scattered battlefields, share a similar ideology and vision for our world.

We know the vision of the radicals because they've openly stated it -- in videos, and audiotapes, and letters, and declarations, and websites. First, these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and stand in the way of their ambitions. Al Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, has called on Muslims to dedicate, quote, their "resources, sons and money to driving the infidels out of their lands." Their tactic to meet this goal has been consistent for a quarter-century: They hit us, and expect us to run. They want us to repeat the sad history of Beirut in 1983, and Mogadishu in 1993 -- only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences.

Second, the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments. Over the past few decades, radicals have specifically targeted Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and Jordan for potential takeover. They achieved their goal, for a time, in Afghanistan. Now they've set their sights on Iraq. Bin Laden has stated: "The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries. It's either victory and glory, or misery and humiliation." The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. And we must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war on terror.

Third, the militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia. With greater economic and military and political power, the terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American people, and to blackmail our government into isolation.

Some might be tempted to dismiss these goals as fanatical or extreme. Well, they are fanatical and extreme -- and they should not be dismissed. Our enemy is utterly committed. As Zarqawi has vowed, "We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life." And the civilized world knows very well that other fanatics in history, from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot, consumed whole nations in war and genocide before leaving the stage of history. Evil men, obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience, must be taken very seriously -- and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply.

Defeating the militant network is difficult, because it thrives, like a parasite, on the suffering and frustration of others. The radicals exploit local conflicts to build a culture of victimization, in which someone else is always to blame and violence is always the solution. They exploit resentful and disillusioned young men and women, recruiting them through radical mosques as the pawns of terror. And they exploit modern technology to multiply their destructive power. Instead of attending faraway training camps, recruits can now access online training libraries to learn how to build a roadside bomb, or fire a rocket-propelled grenade -- and this further spreads the threat of violence, even within peaceful democratic societies.

The influence of Islamic radicalism is also magnified by helpers and enablers. They have been sheltered by authoritarian regimes, allies of convenience like Syria and Iran, that share the goal of hurting America and moderate Muslim governments, and use terrorist propaganda to blame their own failures on the West and America, and on the Jews. These radicals depend on front operations, such as corrupted charities, which direct money to terrorist activity. They're strengthened by those who aggressively fund the spread of radical, intolerant versions of Islam in unstable parts of the world. The militants are aided, as well, by elements of the Arab news media that incite hatred and anti-Semitism, that feed conspiracy theories and speak of a so-called American "war on Islam" -- with seldom a word about American action to protect Muslims in Afghanistan, and Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Iraq.

Some have also argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions of our coalition in Iraq, claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001 -- and al Qaeda attacked us anyway. The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse. The government of Russia did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and yet the militants killed more than 180 Russian schoolchildren in Beslan.

Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence -- the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago. In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of the killers
-- and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder.

On the contrary: They target nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence. Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, never give in, and never accept anything less than complete victory. (Applause.)

The murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals is the great challenge of our new century. Yet, in many ways, this fight resembles the struggle against communism in the last century. Like the ideology of communism, Islamic radicalism is elitist, led by a self-appointed vanguard that presumes to speak for the Muslim masses. Bin Laden says his own role is to tell Muslims, quote, "what is good for them and what is not." And what this man who grew up in wealth and privilege considers good for poor Muslims is that they become killers and suicide bombers. He assures them that his -- that this is the road to paradise -- though he never offers to go along for the ride.

Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy teaches that innocent individuals can be sacrificed to serve a political vision. And this explains their cold-blooded contempt for human life. We've seen it in the murders of Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg, and Margaret Hassan, and many others. In a courtroom in the Netherlands, the killer of Theo Van Gogh turned to the victim's grieving mother and said, "I do not feel your pain -- because I believe you are an infidel." And in spite of this veneer of religious rhetoric, most of the victims claimed by the militants are fellow Muslims.

When 25 Iraqi children are killed in a bombing, or Iraqi teachers are executed at their school, or hospital workers are killed caring for the wounded, this is murder, pure and simple -- the total rejection of justice and honor and morality and religion. These militants are not just the enemies of America, or the enemies of Iraq, they are the enemies of Islam and the enemies of humanity. (Applause.) We have seen this kind of shameless cruelty before, in the heartless zealotry that led to the gulags, and the Cultural Revolution, and the killing fields.

Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy pursues totalitarian aims. Its leaders pretend to be an aggrieved party, representing the powerless against imperial enemies. In truth they have endless ambitions of imperial domination, and they wish to make everyone powerless except themselves. Under their rule, they have banned books, and desecrated historical monuments, and brutalized women. They seek to end dissent in every form, and to control every aspect of life, and to rule the soul, itself. While promising a future of justice and holiness, the terrorists are preparing for a future of oppression and misery.

Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy is dismissive of free peoples, claiming that men and women who live in liberty are weak and decadent. Zarqawi has said that Americans are, quote, "the most cowardly of God's creatures." But let's be clear: It is cowardice that seeks to kill children and the elderly with car bombs, and cuts the throat of a bound captive, and targets worshipers leaving a mosque. It is courage that liberated more than 50 million people. It is courage that keeps an untiring vigil against the enemies of a rising democracy. And it is courage in the cause of freedom that once again will destroy the enemies of freedom. (Applause.)

And Islamic radicalism, like the ideology of communism, contains inherent contradictions that doom it to failure. By fearing freedom -- by distrusting human creativity, and punishing change, and limiting the contributions of half the population -- this ideology undermines the very qualities that make human progress possible, and human societies successful. The only thing modern about the militants' vision is the weapons they want to use against us. The rest of their grim vision is defined by a warped image of the past -- a declaration of war on the idea of progress, itself. And whatever lies ahead in the war against this ideology, the outcome is not in doubt: Those who despise freedom and progress have condemned themselves to isolation, decline, and collapse. Because free peoples believe in the future, free peoples will own the future. (Applause.)

We didn't ask for this global struggle, but we're answering history's call with confidence, and a comprehensive strategy. Defeating a broad and adaptive network requires patience, constant pressure, and strong partners in Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, Asia and beyond. Working with these partners, we're disrupting militant conspiracies, destroying their ability to make war, and working to give millions in a troubled region of the world a hopeful alternative to resentment and violence.

First, we're determined to prevent the attacks of terrorist networks before they occur. We're reorganizing our government to give this nation a broad and coordinated homeland defense. We're reforming our intelligence agencies for the incredibly difficult task of tracking enemy activity, based on information that often comes in small fragments from widely scattered sources, here and abroad. We're acting, along with the governments from many countries, to destroy the terrorist networks and incapacitate their leaders. Together, we've killed or captured nearly all of those directly responsible for the September the 11th attacks; as well as some of bin Laden's most senior deputies; al Qaeda managers and operatives in more than 24 countries; the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing, who was chief of al Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf; the mastermind of the Jakarta and the first Bali bombings; a senior Zarqawi terrorist planner, who was planning attacks in Turkey; and many of al Qaeda's senior leaders in Saudi Arabia.

Overall, the United States and our partners have disrupted at least ten serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since September the 11th, including three al Qaeda plots to attack inside the United States. We've stopped at least five more al Qaeda efforts to case targets in the United States, or infiltrate operatives into our country. Because of this steady progress, the enemy is wounded -- but the enemy is still capable of global operations. Our commitment is clear: We will not relent until the organized international terror networks are exposed and broken, and their leaders held to account for their acts of murder.

Second, we're determined to deny weapons of mass destruction to outlaw regimes, and to their terrorist allies who would use them without hesitation. The United States, working with Great Britain, Pakistan, and other nations, has exposed and disrupted a major black-market operation in nuclear technology led by A.Q. Khan. Libya has abandoned its chemical and nuclear weapons programs, as well as long-range ballistic missiles. And in the last year, America and our partners in the Proliferation Security Initiative have stopped more than a dozen shipments of suspected weapons technology, including equipment for Iran's ballistic missile program.

This progress has reduced the danger to free nations, but has not removed it. Evil men who want to use horrendous weapons against us are working in deadly earnest to gain them. And we're working urgently to keep weapons of mass destruction out of their hands.

Third, we're determined to deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes. State sponsors like Syria and Iran have a long history of collaboration with terrorists, and they deserve no patience from the victims of terror. The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, because they're equally as guilty of murder. (Applause.) Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization. And the civilized world must hold those regimes to account.

Fourth, we're determined to deny the militants control of any nation, which they would use as a home base and a launching pad for terror. For this reason, we're fighting beside our Afghan partners against remnants of the Taliban and their al Qaeda allies. For this reason, we're working with President Musharraf to oppose and isolate the militants in Pakistan. And for this reason, we're fighting the regime remnants and terrorists in Iraq. The terrorist goal is to overthrow a rising democracy, claim a strategic country as a haven for terror, destabilize the Middle East, and strike America and other free nations with ever-increasing violence. Our goal is to defeat the terrorists and their allies at the heart of their power -- and so we will defeat the enemy in Iraq.

Our coalition, along with our Iraqi allies, is moving forward with a comprehensive, specific military plan. Area by area, city by city, we're conducting offensive operations to clear out enemy forces, and leaving behind Iraqi units to prevent the enemy from returning. Within these areas, we're working for tangible improvements in the lives of Iraqi citizens. And we're aiding the rise of an elected government that unites the Iraqi people against extremism and violence. This work involves great risk for Iraqis, and for Americans and coalition forces. Wars are not won without sacrifice -- and this war will require more sacrifice, more time, and more resolve.

The terrorists are as brutal an enemy as we've ever faced. They're unconstrained by any notion of our common humanity, or by the rules of warfare. No one should underestimate the difficulties ahead, nor should they overlook the advantages we bring to this fight.

Some observers look at the job ahead and adopt a self-defeating pessimism. It is not justified. With every random bombing and with every funeral of a child, it becomes more clear that the extremists are not patriots, or resistance fighters -- they are murderers at war with the Iraqi people, themselves.

In contrast, the elected leaders of Iraq are proving to be strong and steadfast. By any standard or precedent of history, Iraq has made incredible political progress -- from tyranny, to liberation, to national elections, to the writing of a constitution, in the space of two-and-a-half years. With our help, the Iraqi military is gaining new capabilities and new confidence with every passing month. At the time of our Fallujah operations 11 months ago, there were only a few Iraqi army battalions in combat. Today there are more than 80 Iraqi army battalions fighting the insurgency alongside our forces. Progress isn't easy, but it is steady. And no fair-minded person should ignore, deny, or dismiss the achievements of the Iraqi people.

Some observers question the durability of democracy in Iraq. They underestimate the power and appeal of freedom. We've heard it suggested that Iraq's democracy must be on shaky ground because Iraqis are arguing with each other. But that's the essence of democracy: making your case, debating with those who you disagree -- who disagree, building consensus by persuasion, and answering to the will of the people. We've heard it said that the Shia, Sunnis and Kurds of Iraq are too divided to form a lasting democracy. In fact, democratic federalism is the best hope for unifying a diverse population, because a federal constitutional system respects the rights and religious traditions of all citizens, while giving all minorities, including the Sunnis, a stake and a voice in the future of their country. It is true that the seeds of freedom have only recently been planted in Iraq -- but democracy, when it grows, is not a fragile flower; it is a healthy, sturdy tree. (Applause.)

As Americans, we believe that people everywhere -- everywhere -- prefer freedom to slavery, and that liberty, once chosen, improves the lives of all. And so we're confident, as our coalition and the Iraqi people each do their part, Iraqi democracy will succeed.

Some observers also claim that America would be better off by cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now. This is a dangerous illusion, refuted with a simple question: Would the United States and other free nations be more safe, or less safe, with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people, and its resources? Having removed a dictator who hated free peoples, we will not stand by as a new set of killers, dedicated to the destruction of our own country, seizes control of Iraq by violence.

There's always a temptation, in the middle of a long struggle, to seek the quiet life, to escape the duties and problems of the world, and to hope the enemy grows weary of fanaticism and tired of murder. This would be a pleasant world, but it's not the world we live in. The enemy is never tired, never sated, never content with yesterday's brutality. This enemy considers every retreat of the civilized world as an invitation to greater violence. In Iraq, there is no peace without victory. We will keep our nerve and we will win that victory. (Applause.)

The fifth element of our strategy in the war on terror is to deny the militants future recruits by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope across the broader Middle East. This is a difficult and long-term project, yet there's no alternative to it. Our future and the future of that region are linked. If the broader Middle East is left to grow in bitterness, if countries remain in misery, while radicals stir the resentments of millions, then that part of the world will be a source of endless conflict and mounting danger, and for our generation and the next. If the peoples of that region are permitted to choose their own destiny, and advance by their own energy and by their participation as free men and women, then the extremists will be marginalized, and the flow of violent radicalism to the rest of the world will slow, and eventually end. By standing for the hope and freedom of others, we make our own freedom more secure.

America is making this stand in practical ways. We're encouraging our friends in the Middle East, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to take the path of reform, to strengthen their own societies in the fight against terror by respecting the rights and choices of their own people. We're standing with dissidents and exiles against oppressive regimes, because we know that the dissidents of today will be the democratic leaders of tomorrow. We're making our case through public diplomacy, stating clearly and confidently our belief in self-determination, and the rule of law, and religious freedom, and equal rights for women, beliefs that are right and true in every land, and in every culture. (Applause.)
As we do our part to confront radicalism, we know that the most vital work will be done within the Islamic world, itself. And this work has begun. Many Muslim scholars have already publicly condemned terrorism, often citing Chapter 5, Verse 32 of the Koran, which states that killing an innocent human being is like killing all humanity, and saving the life of one person is like saving all of humanity. After the attacks in London on July the 7th, an imam in the United Arab Emirates declared, "Whoever does such a thing is not a Muslim, nor a religious person." The time has come for all responsible Islamic leaders to join in denouncing an ideology that exploits Islam for political ends, and defiles a noble faith.

Many people of the Muslim faith are proving their commitment at great personal risk. Everywhere we have engaged the fight against extremism, Muslim allies have stood up and joined the fight, becoming partners in a vital cause. Afghan troops are in combat against Taliban remnants. Iraqi soldiers are sacrificing to defeat al Qaeda in their own country. These brave citizens know the stakes -- the survival of their own liberty, the future of their own region, the justice and humanity of their own tradition -- and that United States of America is proud to stand beside them. (Applause.)

With the rise of a deadly enemy and the unfolding of a global ideological struggle, our time in history will be remembered for new challenges and unprecedented dangers. And yet the fight we have joined is also the current expression of an ancient struggle, between those who put their faith in dictators, and those who put their faith in the people. Throughout history, tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that murder is justified to serve their grand vision -- and they end up alienating decent people across the globe. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that regimented societies are strong and pure -- until those societies collapse in corruption and decay. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that free men and women are weak and decadent -- until the day that free men and women defeat them.

We don't know the course of our own struggle -- the course our own struggle will take -- or the sacrifices that might lie ahead. We do know, however, that the defense of freedom is worth our sacrifice. We do know the love of freedom is the mightiest force of history. And we do know the cause of freedom will once again prevail.

May God bless you. (Applause.)

END 10:47 A.M. EDT

Dear Oppenheimer,
Thank you for this post, this is a great speech by President Bush, I think freedom-loving Activists from Right, Left and Center should analysis this speech carefully with open mind and without any dogma.
Many ActivistChat members in this forum believe that the “War On Terror” is UNWINNABLE and the world peace can not be achieved as long as the Unelected Islamists Terror and Torture Masters are in power in Iran. The terror state and fear society can not create stability.
Our question might be, is President Bush sharing the same view as ActivistChat members or not, what are the key differences if any? and what is the US policy and strategy to change illegitimate, corrupt , and unpopular Islamist regime in Iran in near future? Past 27 years has proven that the Iranian people by themselves can not change the brutal Islamist regime.
Regards,
Cyrus

Last edited by cyrus on Fri Oct 07, 2005 3:13 am; edited 7 times in total